I wonder if critical discussion about board games is in a very early, fragile state, where we can't yet voice passionate disagreement, because it is always seen as reactionary dismissal of game criticism as a whole.

It seems incredibly difficult to say "this take is wrong", without worrying about people reading it as "stop thinking, it's just a game" or worse yet "stop being so woke".

But I do think that criticism must eventually allow for passionate disagreement, in order to actually develop distinct stances, views and viewpoints.

We can't have nuance without difference.

@Georgios Very likely, but I think it's also a consequence of social media, because that seems to be the default reaction to any sort of critique. I also see it happening in my other hobbies, it's exhausting.

@gamesbymanuel I agree, that the way social media has shaped our way of engaging each other has made these kinds of conversations more difficult.

I used to think that establishing your identity off-line with each other would help counteract this problem, but that doesn't seem to take.

@Georgios That second part is key. I don't think it happens nearly enough on more private spaces such as blogs, but in a public feed, any criticism gets drowned by calls of "it's just a game", "just scroll past", "go to another site", as if things could not and should never improve.

@gamesbymanuel Yeah. I have a lot of sympathy with more prominent critics who are already pre-emptively addressing such dismissal in their reviews.

But I also think that this doesn't lead to a more open critical conversation about games, because we're all too busy distancing ourselves from the reactionaries. Instead of a conversation we end up with a lot of individual opinions existing independently of each other.

@Georgios I agree, but given the current structure of the internet that seems like the most likely scenario.